Category Archives: Housing

Housing, Land north of Bromham Road

Development 0ff Gold Lane

2 Comments

It’s been quite a while but development has continued off Gold Lane and phase 2 is now well underway.

And in the meantime road names have been agreed for both phases, and the good news is that the names, as hoped, do remember and celebrate the villages agricultural and faming heritage, including the late lamented dovecote.

In phase 1 there are:

Boteler Reach and Dovecote Drive: what is now the village pond was originally a carp pond created by Sir William Boteler to supply fish for the Manor table. Later his wife Elizabeth built by the pond the dovecote to supply meat and eggs for the table and fertiliser for the fields.

Peacock Lane, Manning Mews and Whitworth Walk: commemorating farmers at what were then working working farms in the village over the years, including Grove Farm, Church Farm, Green Farm and Honeyhill Farm.

The Smithy and Wheelwright Way: remembering two essential trades that supported the village farmers.

Within The Smithy are Summerlin House and Davison House, remembering two long serving village blacksmiths Frederick Summerlin (43 years) and his successor William Davison (45 years).

Within Wheelwright way is Hebbes House remembering Alfred Hebbes the village wheelwright in Duck End Lane for 50 years.

In phase 2 will be:

Howard Way and Rawlins Reach: Charles Howard was a farmer at Manor Farm of international renown as a sheep breeder, particularly for his Oxford Down rams and flock. When he died in 1895 some 600 people attended his funeral in the village, many having to stand in the churchyard. Fred Rawlins farmed for many decades of the 1900s at Honeyhill Farm and later at Church Farm which by then included Manor, Honeyhill and Grove farms, some 1,000 acres in total.

Shepherd Lane and Carpenter Close: remembering two other occupations that supported the village farmers.

Campion Road and King Lane: Campion was Charles Howard’s shepherd and Harry King was carpenter for the Biddenham Estate and was in charge of the work undertaken in 1932 to restore the dovecote, which sadly was later mysteriously demolished early one morning in 1966.

And more good news, the Parish Council being keen to support the history of the village would like to do this by extending the village Heritage Trail bringing in the archaeological discoveries in the land off Gold Lane.  It would also like to explore how the trail could be linked to the development north of Bromham Road. And hopefully new heritage boards could also explain the history behind the road names that have been chosen.

 

 

 

Green Spaces, Housing, Open spaces, Roads

Development off Gold Lane: road names

2 Comments

The development by dandara on the land off Gold Lane is now progressing rapidly and extensively across the site. The rate of build looks to be nearing the stage where dandara could well be turning its thoughts to the naming of the roads within the development.

The process of road naming is, we understand, initiated by the developer submitting an application to the Borough Council. The Borough Council does make it clear on their application form that a developer needs to engage with the local parish council, and in this case the Borough will engage with Biddenham’s Parish Council and promote the Parish Council’s preference back to the developer.   As yet no application has been made by the developer, dandara.

The Parish Council can make a suggestion to the Borough before an application is submitted by the developer (and also make the same suggestion to the developer). 

Villager Peter Applewhite has prepared a paper setting out a rationale for the names that might be adopted for the roads within the development off Gold Lane, names that would preserve and celebrate the history, characteristics and nature of Biddenham, names that would resonate with villagers who have long strived to retain the rural character of the village.

The paper is addressed to dandara and Peter sent it to the developer earlier in the year. More recently he circulated it to the Parish Council, which will consider it at the 18 January 2022 meeting: the Parish Council’s meetings are open to the public who have an opportunity to ask questions as an early item on each agenda. The Parish Council has kindly posted a copy of the paper on its web site.

The paper describes the one substantial and significant feature of Biddenham’s long history yet to be celebrated and remembered in road names: that is its agricultural and farming heritage. And this development being built on former agricultural land, is effectively the last substantial opportunity to do that.

For many centuries, indeed for the great majority of its existence as a settlement, Biddenham was a self-contained rural farming community where villagers both lived and worked. But today there are no working farms left in the village and very little and steadily diminishing agricultural land.

The paper proposes that it would be most appropriate, indeed quite remarkable and wonderful, therefore when choosing road names for this development to remember and celebrate the village’s agricultural and farming heritage.

It is hoped that the paper will inform and help the decision making process as and when road names are being considered: the development off Gold Lane is the last substantial opportunity to remember and celebrate Biddenham’s agricultural and farming heritage over the most extensive period, stretching over many, many centuries, of its existence as a settlement.

Whether the developer will look favourably on this proposal is not known and cannot be taken for granted. But it is hoped dandara and both the Parish and Borough Councils will recognise the significant contribution such naming would make to preserving for future generations such a substantial part of Biddenham’s heritage.

A thought, one former feature of the village still close to many hearts is the dovecote, which stood by what is now the village pond, formerly the Manor carp pond, for some 260 years. Whilst restored in 1932, sadly it was demolished early one morning without warning in 1966, a sad loss of a unique part of the village’s heritage. The dovecote provided eggs, meat and fertiliser and the pond provided fish. Wouldn’t it be great to see at last the dovecote remembered and celebrated, in the name of a road which would be not too far removed from where it once stood.

A final thought. Wouldn’t it be great too to record on information boards in the development (perhaps by the play areas which residents will visit and stay a while) this substantial and significant feature of the village’s heritage remembered through the road names chosen, as it is hoped will be the case, combined perhaps too with information about the archaeological discoveries from the earliest days of the settlement made on site before construction started.

 

 

 

 

Biddenham Society, Green Spaces, Housing, Open spaces

Church End paddock threatened again

Gallery 1 Comment

The Biddenham Society (founded 1965)

Church End paddock threatened again

Blakeney Estates Ltd (Mr O Doyle) has served notice in the local press that the proprietor intends to apply for planning permission to construct 15 dwellings on the 2.5-acre paddock between nos. 21 to 41 Church End and the golf course, demolishing the existing property of 21 Church End to provide access.  This will be the developer’s fourth attempt in the last ten years to build on the site, all previous applications having been refused and the subsequent appeals dismissed.

The paddock is one of the few remaining green spaces in the old village, and is separated from the golf course and its housing by a popular public footpath running from Manor Road to The Branston Way.

This developer has a long history of back land development all over Biddenham.  Many residents will be unaware of the extent of this, as the properties are often not easily visible from the public highway.  Unfortunately, the outcome has been to obliterate many of Biddenham’s remaining green spaces, as well as having knock-on effects on the routes of underground water courses.  

When the formal application is submitted, the society will once again be objecting to the development, and we urge residents to do likewise.
Tony Wood, Chairman

Please Note:

The formal planning application has now been received.  The planning reference is 19/01350/MAF and the closing date for comments is 23 July 2019. The full plans may be viewed by following the instructions below.
1. Click on the link TO VIEW AND COMMENT ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS
2. Type in 19/01350/MAF and click on the Search button.
3. For the plans click on Documents followed by View Associated documents
Housing, Land north of Bromham Road, Open spaces, Photos

New Roundabout on the Bromham Road? …

maybe not, but a good view of (& from) the old Golf Club!

A P P L IC A T IO N N o 2 0 / 0 2 7 6 1 / F U L T Y P E : F u ll P la n n in g A p p lic a t io n

P R O P O S A L : D e v e lo p m e n t o f n e w r o u n d a b o u t o n B r o m h a m R o a d , t o r e p la c e t h e a p p r o v e d r ig h t h a n d t u r n la n e a n d g h o s t is la n d a p p r o v e d u n d e r 0 1 / 0 2 1 9 9 / E IA

L O C A T IO N : L a n d A t F o r m e r O u s e V a lle y G o lf C lu b B r o m h a m R o a d B id d e n h a m B e d f o r d s h ir e

1 . V e h ic u la r

a ) T h e u p d a te d T ra n s p o rt S ta te m e n t is in a d e q u a te . It le a n s o n th e p re v io u s s tu d y p e rfo rm e d in 2 0 1 4 b a s e d u p o n e s t im a t e s a n d s u p p o s it io n a s t o t h e im p a c t o f t h e G re a t O u s e W a y

(o p e n e d s u b s e q u e n tly in O c to b e r 2 0 1 4 ) a n d o th e r re s id e n tia l d e v e lo p m e n ts in th e a re a .

(Transport Statement 2020 section 2.1 states, “existing highway network… remains unchanged”).

A n e c d o t a l e v id e n c e s u g g e s t s t h e e x p e c t e d r e d u c t io n in t r a ffic a lo n g t h e B r o m h a m R o a d h a s n o t m a t e r ia lis e d . A d e t a ile d p h y s ic a l s t u d y o f t r a ffic flo w s t h a t n o w e x is t is n e c e s s a r y . T h e q u e u in g o f v e h ic le s d u rin g p e a k h o u rs o n th e b y p a s s h a s le d to v e h ic le s u s in g th e B ro m h a m Road (and likely any proposed development link road) as “rat-runs” with excess speed when p o s s ib le a n d s ig n if ic a n t q u e u in g ( w it h a s s o c ia t e d p o llu t io n ) a t p e a k h o u r s s t ill a lo n g – t e r m

c h a ra c te ris tic o f th e a re a . T h is is p rio r to th e a d d itio n o f th o s e th a t w ill b e h o u s e d a n d

c o n n e c te d o n th e la te s t p h a s e o f d e v e lo p m e n t.

T h e e x is t in g B r o m h a m R o a d is w it h in a 3 0 – m p h z o n e , t h o u g h d u e t o p e r s is t e n t a b u s e o f t h a t lim it re c e n t re p re s e n t a t io n s w e re m a d e b y u s (a n d re je c t e d ) t o in c re a s e t h a t lim it t o

4 0 m p h . C o n s e q u e n tly , b e tte r e ffo rts m u s t b e m a d e to p ro v id e c la rity o f th e lim it to d riv e rs ( n o t a b ly im p r o v in g t h e a lm o s t n o n – e x is t e n t s p e e d lim it s ig n a g e ) . A d d it io n a lly , m a k in g t h e e n try a n d e x it p o in ts to th e ro u n d a b o u t m o re a c u te b y lo c a tin g it fu rth e r in to th e

d e v e lo p m e n t la n d w o u ld b e a g o o d w a y to c a lm tra ffic s p e e d s .

b ) A s t h e r o u n d a b o u t w i l l s e r v e e x i s t i n g a n d a d d i t i o n a l n e w r e s i d e n t s , i n c r e a si n g t h e f e e l i n g t h a t t h is is a r e s id e n t ia l a r e a , it w o u ld b e a p p r o p r ia t e t o im p o s e s iz e a n d w e ig h t r e s t r ic t io n s on Heavy Goods Vehicles “except for access”. So, brewery deliveries and X5 coaches could

s t i l l b e p e r m i t t e d , b u t o t h e r H G V s t r a v e l l i n g t o d e s t in a t i o n s f u r t h e r a f i e l d s h o u l d b e d i r e c t e d to use the Great Ouse Way.

c) Please could any surface or re-surfacing utilise modern low noise materials to reduce the noise level of passing traffic.

2 . P e d e s t r ia n

T h e a p p l i c a t i o n fo r F u l l P l a n n i n g P e r m i s s i o n s e c t i o n 5 . 3 0 s u g g e s t s e n h a n c e m e n t o f b o t h pedestrian routes and facilities. None is specified. The statement focuses on the

development, but not how it is connected to the existing environment. For example, at or near the roundabout there is no facility to cross the Bromham Road safely for a pedestrian from the existing Biddenham village.

T h e e x i s t i n g s u b – s t a n d a r d p a t h a n d k e r b s h o u l d b e b r o u g h t u p t o a s a fe r m o d e r n s t a n d a r d .

3 . C y c lin g

T h e a p p l i c a t i o n fo r F u l l P l a n n i n g P e r m i s s i o n s e c t i o n 5 . 3 2 m a k e s n o s t a t e d e f f o r t t o i m p r o v e

Biddenham 2035, Biddenham village pond, Housing

Land west of Gold Lane, Biddenham

The Friends of the Biddenham Village Pond have submitted to Bedford Borough Council today:

If you haven’t already objected to policy 19, please do so now using this quick and easy to use link: http://www.have-a-say.co.uk/bpc-policy19.

And if you haven’t already objected to the planning application to build 250 houses west of Gold Lane (18/00140/MAO), please do so now using this link: http://www.have-a-say.co.uk/1800140MAO.

Please continue to share these links widely.

Biddenham 2035, Biddenham Society, Conservation area, Housing, Open spaces

BEDFORD SOCIETY LOCAL PLAN 2035: CONSULTATION

The Biddenham Society

BEDFORD BOROUGH LOCAL PLAN 2035: CONSULTATION
The Biddenham Society has submitted the following objections to Policies 19 and 23 (which relate to tracts of land west of Gold Lane and on the north side of Bromham Road close to the bridge) of the draft 2035 Local Plan, and has requested the policies are withdrawn.

Policy 19
This area of land is currently protected by Policy AD43 (Urban Open Spaces and Gaps) of the Borough’s Allocations and Designations Plan.  Policy AD43 identifies urban open spaces as those ‘which have particular importance in maintaining the function, character and identity of the urban area’.  It specifically highlights the need to preserve ‘visual breaks to safeguard local distinctiveness including views (particular areas of importance around Elstow and Biddenham have been identified as gaps)’.
It further states that ‘Development will not be permitted on land designated as urban open space and gaps unless it can be demonstrated that the reasons for designation are not compromised or that other material considerations outweigh the need to retain the urban open space and gaps undeveloped’.
This policy (AD43) supports the most recent inspector’s report on this area which relates to an application from Wimpey Homes Holdings to ‘Allocate 18.61ha of land at Gold Lane, Biddenham for some 350 new dwellings on 10ha of net developable land with generous landscaping’ (May 2001 Inspector’s Report on the Bedford Borough Local Plan, page 116 section 4.2.27).  He concludes that ‘Development of the scale proposed would seriously diminish the visual attraction of the village edge’, and that ‘By extending north-westwards over what is now a relatively wide rural landscape, it would much diminish the separation between this fringe area of Bedford and the nearby village of Bromham’.

The Biddenham Society suggests that the rationale for creating Policy 19 to supersede Policy AD43 of the Allocations and Designation Plan for this area is unsound for the following reasons:

  1. The Inspector’s conclusions are as valid now as they were in 2001. In the intervening period the only change on this site has been the replacement of a single derelict barn at the end of Duck End Lane with a new dwelling, otherwise the entire area is in exactly the same condition as before, and remains undisturbed agricultural land.
  2. Whilst the current proposal in Policy 19 is to develop only 160 dwellings compared to the 350 on which the inspector ruled, his conclusions are equally valid when applied to this lesser number. Firstly, a smaller development will still impact significantly on ‘the visual attraction of the village edge’ as he states, and secondly, confining 160 dwellings to the north-east of the site does not negate the inspector’s concern of closing the gap with Bromham by extending the village north-westwards.
  3. The development of 160 dwellings in Proposal 19 is certainly in conflict with the existing Policy AD43, and it is difficult to conceive how one could dispute that this development would have a serious negative effect on ‘maintaining the function, character and identity’ of Biddenham. Further, the local authority cannot argue that ‘other material considerations outweigh the need to retain the urban open space and gaps undeveloped’ as Bedford Borough has many more sustainable and brown-field sites that could be developed for the 160 properties proposed here.
  4. Proposal 9 is also flawed on practical grounds. There is no safe vehicular access to and from the section of the site identified, with any chosen exit onto Gold Lane raising the prospect of a significant increase in traffic through the centre of the village. Local schools are not equipped to handle the increased numbers of school-age children which will result from new housing of this magnitude, the education service already being under pressure to cater for the extra demand resulting from the large building programme north of Bromham Road.

The Biddenham Society therefore urges Bedford Borough to delete Policy 9 from the 2035 draft Local Plan.

Policy 23
This area of land is currently protected by Policy AD42 (Local Gaps) of the Allocations and Designations Plan, and by Policies CP12 and CP13 of the Core strategy and Rural Issues Plan. The proposed Policy 23 to the new Local Plan seeks to set aside important geographical and environmental factors which the borough previously considered to be sufficiently significant as to be worthy of inclusion as ‘red lines’ in the planning framework.  These include

  1. Preserving the physical presence, visual appearance, character, and integrity of the gap between the site and the Bromham boundary; and
  2. Defining the site as open countryside within the context of Settlement Policy Areas, with future development only being permitted if consistent with national policy, in particular PPS7: Planning and the Countryside.

There have been no changes to this area of land since the above two plans were approved, the most recent application for development (16/00737/MAO) being withdrawn following widespread opposition, including from the planning authority.  It is therefore difficult to understand why there should be a reversal of policy as the earlier objections still apply, especially when the relatively small number of dwellings that can be accommodated could be built on more suitable sites available elsewhere in the borough.

In addition to the above it is clear there are several other sound reasons why this particular site is unsuitable for housing development.  These include

    1. Its part presence in flood zones 2 and 3a which will place an unnecessary burden and worry on future occupants of dwellings constructed here;
    2. The presence of a narrow and dangerous access onto Bromham Road;
    3. Causing increased traffic flow across the ancient Bromham Bridge in one direction, and onto the Bromham bypass via a hazardous junction in the other direction; and
    4. The destruction of the beautiful vistas to and from the bridge and the mill.

The Biddenham Society therefore urges Bedford Borough to
delete Policy 23 from the 2035 draft Local Plan.

Dr Tony Wood      Chairman

Biddenham Society, Conservation area, Housing

Biddenham House, 2 Gold Lane, Biddenham – Objection issued

the following objection has been issued:

Ms Rachel Duncan
Planning Department
Bedford Borough Council
5 January 2018

Dear Ms Duncan
Application 17/03101/FUL Biddenham House, 2 Gold Lane, Biddenham MK40 4AJ

 The society wishes to object to the above application for the following reasons:

    • Gold Lane is narrow at the point of access to the site and a further 16 vehicles (@ 2/dwelling) would exacerbate the hazards associated with this section of road.
    • The house and property lie within the Biddenham Conservation Area and at the heart of this historic village.  The construction of new dwellings on the site would be totally out of keeping with this part of Biddenham and the character of the surrounding buildings.
    • The southern boundary of the property is directly adjacent to the village green and 50m from it. The 2016 Conservation Area Appraisal notes the value of the focal point of the village green, the key views to and from it, the prolific greenery and open spaces, deep grass verges and the extensive private open gardens, all contributing to the special interest of Biddenham.  This attractive setting is complemented by the views of Biddenham House across the site.
    • There are eight historic properties or features visible within 100m of the site boundaries:
      i). 63 Main Road, The Forge (C17th former blacksmith’s cottage)
      ii). 48-50 Main Road, Horseshoe Cottage (C17th Listed Grade 2)
      iii). 42 Main Road, Lavender Lodge (C18th former farmhouse and the oldest house in the village)
      iv). 67 Main Road, The Old Vicarage (C18th Listed Grade 2 with the prominent Cedar of Lebanon tree planted in 1875 by a former vicar)
      v). 67a Main Road, Groom’s Cottage (C17th former carriage house, stables and tack room)
      vi). 1-3 Gold Lane, Dawn Cottage (C17th Listed Grade 2, former dairy, cobbler and costumier)
      vii). 8-10 Duck End (C16th limestone rubble cottage built over the remains of a Roman Road)
      viii). The entrance to The Coffin Path from Gold Lane (C16th field track for coffins to be carried to St James Church)
      The proposed new buildings on this plot would destroy the historic 360 degree perspective enjoyed from the village green.
    • The main part of Biddenham House was built circa 1766 and is the only surviving example of an C18th double pile, polite, small country house in the village. It is alleged the property was used as a hunting lodge by a Duke of Marlborough.  The 2016 Conservation Area Appraisal describes the house as having positive merit, with the setting of the house on the north side of the village green aiding the distinctiveness of this area. Its demolition would represent an unacceptable loss of a part of Biddenham’s heritage.

    The application is in conflict with the 2002 Local Plan saved policies BE11, BE13, BE15, NE18, and H24 i), ii), iv), and Policy CP21 iv) of the 2008 Core Strategies and Rural Issues Plan, and we urge its rejection.

    Dr Tony Wood    Chairman

    The Biddenham Society  Chairman Dr Tony Wood
    34 Church End, Biddenham, Bedford MK40 4AR
    telephone 01234 349395 e-mail: tony.wood@redrobin.me.uk

Biddenham Society, Biddenham village pond, Coffin Path, Housing, Photos, St James Church

DEVELOPER PLANS 300 HOUSES TO GRAB MOST OF THE FARMLAND WEST OF GOLD LANE

6 Comments

DEVELOPER PLANS 300 HOUSES TO GRAB MOST OF THE FARMLAND WEST OF GOLD LANE

Click to enlarge

On 31st October 2017 a meeting was held between interested parties and the proposed developers of a modest area of farmland west of Gold Lane bounded by Gold Lane to the east, Bromham Road to the north and Duck End Lane to the south, on which the local authority had suggested 160 dwellings would be appropriate.  Those attending included local councillors, the Parish Council and Friends of Biddenham Pond as well as the Biddenham Society. The developers Curtin and Co. were accompanied by a representative from Lioncourt Strategic Land.

The Biddenham representatives were astonished instead to be confronted with a plan for 300 houses covering an area nearly four times that provisionally suggested by the local authority as appropriate.  Houses would completely surround Duck End Lane as far south as the village pond, and extend west to the footpath between the church and the Bromham bypass.  Whilst the developers insisted the plans presented were only ‘Work in progress’ it was very clear that any adverse views expressed would make no difference to the overall size of the scheme proposed.

The developer’s tactics were seen by all present as a flagrant attempt to grab most of our remaining open space for the pecuniary gain of themselves and the landowners, and without any regard for the effects on the village and its residents.  Our unanimous opposition was made clear, and in a subsequent private discussion the next course of action to be taken to prevent the proposed development was decided.

Biddenham 2035, Biddenham Society, Biddenham village pond, Cowslip meadow, Housing

The Biddenham Society – 2017 AGM and Lunch

More than 70 residents, including our two borough councillors, attended the 53rd Annual Lunch and AGM of the Biddenham Society in the Village Hall on Sunday 5th November.  Following the chairman’s welcome, the society’s secretary Mark Phillips presented and summarised the minutes of the 2016 AGM.  In ‘Matters Arising’, the chairman reported on the current sale of 11 Church End, and the request of the planning authority to help monitor that the conditions attached to the use of the annexe are followed in the future by the new owners.

The Treasurer Garry Fitzhugh reported a satisfactory set of accounts with the customary modest surplus. A questioner was referred to a note on the balance sheet indicating that the majority of the residual funds held were contributed by local organisations specifically for the future maintenance of the Biddenham Heritage Trail. The accounts were approved by the meeting.

In his report the chairman Tony Wood reported there had been 32 village planning applications during the previous 12 months, most of which were uncontentious. He briefly reviewed the four to which the society had objected.

The chairman then moved to the development of the borough’s Local Plan 2021-2035.  He reminded the meeting that 10 village sites had been submitted last year for reclassification for building purposes, all of which had been opposed by the society. Most of these had recently been eliminated by the local authority, the main exception being an area bounded by Gold Lane to the east, Bromham Road to the north, and Duck End Lane to the south on which it was suggested 160 dwellings might be constructed.  Whilst the society’s position remained opposed to any further development in Biddenham, the pressure on the local authority to meet its housing targets within the urban area was recognised, and the proposal appeared to be the least worst option.

A meeting was held earlier in the week between local interested parties and the proposed developer to discuss this parcel of land, but to the astonishment of the residents and local councillors the developer instead presented a plan for 300 houses covering an area nearly four times that suggested by the local authority as being appropriate. This was seen by those present as a blatant attempt to drive through a mass housing scheme for the pecuniary gain of the developer and the landowners which was contrary to the interests of the village, and was vigorously opposed.

The chairman drew attention to copies of the plan posted in the hall (reproduced on the Biddenham Blog), and invited Peter Chase to speak on behalf of the Parish Council. He confirmed the council’s complete opposition to the proposals, and outlined very clearly why these were at variance to decisions previously taken by the planners to preserve the physical separation of Biddenham and Bromham.  There were also many other reasons why such a large development was undesirable including access, traffic considerations, school provision, and the ecological effects on the village pond.  With the support of the group that had met the developer he had since written a lengthy letter to the Mayor and borough Chief Executive which listed in detail the numerous local objections to the proposal.

As part of the subsequent debate and questions, Cllr Roger Rigby clarified the likely rationale of the borough in putting forward its original proposal for 160 properties on this site, and confirmed the wisdom of submitting a strong letter from the Parish Council objecting to the developer’s enhanced plans. It was stated that the developer had announced the intention to hold a public consultation in the Church Barn on 21st November.

The final main agenda item was a short presentation from Chris Hayden-Jones on our local footpaths and Cowslip Meadow to which many improvements had already been made with more planned. The chairman thanked Chris for his hard work and leadership on this excellent community project.

In considering membership of the committee for 2017-2018, Bob Hutchinson had indicated he would be stepping down after ten years (nine as treasurer) on the committee, and the meeting warmly showed its appreciation. The remainder of the existing committee (Will Jenkin, Mark Phillips, Garry Fitzhugh, Monica Knight, Susie Mason-Patel, Jeremy Reynolds, Chris Hayden-Jones and Tony Wood), were re-elected unanimously.

The chairman closed the meeting with thanks to all the helpers preparing and serving the lunch, especially to the chief organisers Will Jenkin and Jeremy Reynolds.  The next AGM will be on Sunday 4th November 2018.

Founded in 1965 by a group of concerned residents, The Biddenham Society remains committed to the continued preservation of the beauty, history, character and heritage of the village.

Biddenham 2035, Biddenham village pond, Conservation area, Housing, Open spaces

Bedford Local Plan 2035

Bedford Borough Council is preparing a local plan that will set out how much growth there should be in the borough in coming years (housing, jobs and associated infrastructure) and where it should take place. Current planning policy documents look up to 2021 and the new local plan will extend that period up to 2035. It will also include policies that will be used to make decisions on planning applications.

The Council has asked for comments on the consultation paper it has issued about the new plan, together with a number of supporting evidence documents. The consultation period ends on 9 June 2017.

In the Borough Council’s consultation paper an area of land off Gold Lane, Biddenham, and within sites numbered 29 and 691 in the documentation is shown as a potential development area at this stage: that area of land is not immediately adjacent to the village pond. But in a supporting document, the current draft Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA), the whole of the land in sites 29 and 691 is shown as being suitable, available and achievable for development.

Our village pond is not served by streams or springs and relies on precipitation and run off from adjacent fields for its water, and importantly the entire area surrounding the pond is currently wildlife friendly. Developing all the land in sites 29 and 691, particularly the field to the north of and by the side of the village pond, between the pond and Duck End Lane, would have a significant and substantial practical and aesthetic impact on the pond.

It would threaten the pond’s very survival and the survival of the wide range of wildlife it supports, including rare and protected species, by adversely impacting both run off water to the pond and also the pond’s setting in the presently attractive open and wildlife friendly landscape around it, thereby reducing the scope for and ability of wildlife to migrate to and from the pond and thus the opportunity for sustainable healthy breeding through genetic diversity with other populations.

The Friends has submitted comments, in a letter to the Borough Council, concluding that given the need to protect and conserve our natural environment, not least species protected by the law, wildlife corridors, and sites of local importance, and to safeguard the future of the village pond, its wildlife and the open wildlife friendly landscape in which the pond sits, it is seeking:

  • at the very minimum, the removal from the threat of development of the field by the side of and to the north of the pond and its retention as open space, that is to its reassessment and recategorisation as land not suitable, available and achievable for development (as was categorised land to the west of that field at Stage 2 of the availability assessment); and
  • more substantially, the removal from the threat of development of the whole of the land in sites 29 and 691, south of the A4280, and its retention as open space, and similarly therefore its reassessment and recategorisation as land not suitable, available and achievable for development.

Please do support your village pond by writing to the Borough Council’s Planning Department with your comments. You can send your comments by email to planningforthefuture@bedford.gov.uk or by post to:

Local Plan 2035 consultation
Planning Policy Team
Bedford Borough Council
Borough Hall
Bedford
MK42 9AP

Thank you.